We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Republicans and Democrats, Labour and Tory, Christian Democrat and Social Democrat, Gaullist and Socialist … they all have a vested interest in maximising perception of their differences: and so the illusion of choice and empowerment that underpins the whole democratic shell game is maintained.
This is hardly a new phenomenon as the fascists and communists in the 1930’s and 40’s did the same thing because like today’s parties, they appealed to largely the same constituencies and the crossover of leaders, members and supporters between them was considerable. Yet like the situation today, what is striking is not how they differed but how similar they really were. Fetishizing the differences is a way of hiding the truth: you are being asked to eat a shit sandwich and the only choice on offer is the type of bread.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
[In a kawaii and innocent tone of voice].
So is that why Liberterians seek to maximise the difference between themselves and the GOP? ^-^
yeah, right snark, that must be it… libertarians in the USA really want billions and billions of dollars spent on entitlement programs, state education and drug enforcement… the truth is out…
idiot.
I just dont go in for this argument, which seems to get repeated here at Samizdata on a regular basis.
Anyone who cannot tell the difference, both in philosophy and results, between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan is in dire need of a brain transplant.
“libertarians in the USA really want billions and billions of dollars spent on entitlement programs, state education and drug enforcement… the truth is out…”
No, they just want to dissolve the American nation by scrapping its borders and allowing vast waves of Hispanics and Muslims to set up shop in the US and wage gang/terrosist war against the American people, reduce the US military to a fraction of its present size, and surrender to global Islamism in the name of “non-interventionism”.
Yeah, I’m gonna vote for that just as soon as I can get my new deluxe tin foil hat on to keep oout the raybeams being beamed into American citizens heads by the Zionist-Neoconservative Global Conspiracy.
It’s not true. Party activists justify themselves to themselves by exaggerating the differences. Party platforms do precisely the opposite.
In modern quasi-democratic systems the main parties have for half a century sought to minimise their differences as they compete for the narrow group of “moderate” swing voters. If a party chooses another strategy, as Republicans with Goldwater or Labour under Foot, they have usually been punished.
The swing voter doesn’t believe very much or think very much, or he would have a decided opinion about the merits of the principles of the parties. The extreme centre (not my phrase, Hitler’s) is where the votes are mined, by appeal to fear of change, backed by constant expansion of the comforting control of the state and the payroll vote.
All the parties listed are MAINSTREAM parties, the ones which actually take turns holding real political power. The smaller parties who have no real chance of doing so are indeed really different.
And yes Shawn, I too favour removing borders. I also favour removing the incentives that in effect subsidise the under-classes which form in immigrant communities and meeting force with force wherever it comes from. I am a great fan of American society, which I regard as the wobbly but manifest torchbearer of enlightenment civilisation… but I really could not care less about the American nation.
>Anyone who cannot tell the difference, both in
>philosophy and results, between Jimmy Carter and
>Ronald Reagan is >in dire need of a brain transplant.
Oddly, Carter deregulated airlines and appointed the guy who killed inflation. The net effect of all this was the Reagan Boom. Reagan, like Kennedy, simplified and lowered taxes, and also appointed the guy who consolidated Carter’s guy’s gains, leading to the Clinton boom. There are distinctions amongst the Presidents, but Carter and Clinton were to the right of, say, Ford and Bush I. (Reagan was somewhat to the right of the southern governors, but not as distinct as Ford and Carter, or Clinton and Bush I. Bush II in economic terms will be considered pretty moderate to liberal by history. It is in his social positions where he has made his conservative mark – and Mr. malaise was pretty socially conservative in his own right.)
“I am a great fan of American society, which I regard as the wobbly but manifest torchbearer of enlightenment civilisation… but I really could not care less about the American nation.”
But you cannot have one without the other. Destroy the American nation and you destroy American society and its freedom. Take away America’s borders and you will not have America, but Mexico writ large.
Obviously I do not agree Shawn. American society will certainly change if the American state is weakened but I would suggest that most of those changes will actually be for the better.
It is the state which is at the root of problem immigration by its underwriting of feckless behaviour and economic parasitism… but I have no problem with immigration per se because it is clear to me that the only bits of society which will wither without the state to prop them up are the bits I would love to see fall apart. Civil society does just fine when left to its own devises.
“but I would suggest that most of those changes will actually be for the better.”
Based on what?
“It is the state which is at the root of problem immigration by its underwriting of feckless behaviour and economic parasitism…”
Only in part, it is also culture that is at the root of the problem. Once again, and I know we have rehashed this here before so its pointliess going around again, but I honestly think that your reasoning is based on a serious fallacy, which is to seperate the principles of liberty from culture. Radically change the culture, eg by turning the US into Mexico, France or Americastan, and the principles of liberty will die. The only way you could avoid this would be by a massive state enforced and run program of assimilation. Limited immigration and border control would be a far better option.
And yes Shawn, I too favour removing borders. I also favour removing the incentives that in effect subsidise the under-classes which form in immigrant communities and meeting force with force wherever it comes from. I am a great fan of American society, which I regard as the wobbly but manifest torchbearer of enlightenment civilisation… but I really could not care less about the American nation.